Haha oh he'll yes it will!! Spielberg and Day Lewis?! Not to mention the makeup looks nearly flawless. There's a rumor that a trailer may come next week to three weeks from now

I may be a little biased since I am an Illinoisan and live in "the land of Lincoln," but in all honesty who doesn't love him? Haha he's quite possibly the most recognized American President abroad as well The movie is destined for greatness

Okay I gotta ask everyone...am I the only one that thinks Life of Pi looks lame? Lol I wasn't impressed by the trailer tbh

Had to go Tarantino. But The Hobbit's a close second for me. Looks like it's a close second for very few other people, though. And I can't wait to see what 48 frames per second looks like on a movie as big and pretty as The Hobbit. Will it change cinema as we know it?

I never thought it would be my most anticipated movie but after watching all the production videos and all I'm quite excited for it.

Nick, have you watched any of the 48fps footage? Did you notice any difference in the "feel" of the image, as opposed to the standard 24 frame per second?

I'm pretty sure they haven't released any 48fps footage yet. :-/

Yeah, I think you're right. The going rumour was they were going to release a 48fps trailer with The Dark Knight Rises in July, but the screening I went to didn't have it (thought this might just be because it was an independent theatre chain but apparently not). I know that a lot of the press at Comic-Con didn't react well to the 48fps, so I'm worried that New Line's gonna baulk when the time comes and they'll just release a converted 24fps version (I read that James Cameron wanted to do Avatar in 30fps but the studio wouldn't let him and, shit, if James Cameron couldn't convince them...). But I really want to see if higher frame rates can still support a cinematic image, or if it'll all just end up looking like Days of Our Lives.

Ry, you aren't alone on Life of Pi. I Wasn't all dazzled by the look, more that I was confused as fuck there's a boy and a tiger in the middle of fucking nowhere in the water and played a million situations of how that was possible, distracting me from the rest of the trailer.

There wasn't a trailer released, and the only 48fps footage they've showed was (I believe) to the select few who were at CinemaCon, who had a mostly negative reaction. However, I have full faith in the format and Jackson, who claimed that what they were shown was not a full product, but rather a rough version of the 48fps. He claimed that there was much work to be done and it looked far better now. Anyways, it's supposed to be very jarring, because as James Cameron said, viewing a film in 3D is like looking through a window, and increasing the frame rate is like taking the glass out of that window. (He'll be shooting Avatar 2 and 3 in 60fps, btw.) Anyways, I expect it will take a good 10 or 15 minutes to get used to the format in theaters (they're showing it selectively in December, since audiences will likely be split about it) but with 3D I don't think it will be able to get anymore lifelike. Already, from 2D and 24fps the trailers look astonishing. I fully believe this might be the most fully realized world-building in filmmaking today.

I'm a bit confused with the whole FPS thing. I know what it means but how exactly will 48fps look different to 24fps?

48fps will have smoother motion (better for 3D - less ghosting or blurring of the image) than your traditional 24fps image, which, because of how we've been trained to watch things, might result in the 48fps image looking more "video"-like , rather than film. Think the difference between a movie and, say, a sports telecast. It will also have the result of making the image appear sharper, as if it has more resolution. All of which can be jarring, and a lot of people will associate it initially with cheap video production, like soap operas. Of course there's far more to an image than just how motion is perceived. The other thing that really distinguishes a cinematic image (apart from artistic decisions like lighting, production design, etc.) is dynamic range, which (I think) in practice means how wide a spectrum of colours a given camera/film stock can reproduce. And it's clear from the 24fps trailers that The Hobbit's DR is gorgeous. What I want to find out is if 48fps can lift all the technical wizardry of The Hobbit to a new level, or if we won't be able to get past the new look even though it might be, objectively, of a higher quality. So much about cinema is a feeling, and we've been trained to feel that 24fps is right for cinema.

Ry, you aren't alone on Life of Pi. I Wasn't all dazzled by the look, more that I was confused as fuck there's a boy and a tiger in the middle of fucking nowhere in the water and played a million situations of how that was possible, distracting me from the rest of the trailer.